| |
Eric, from this an another note of yours, it is clear that I approached this
conversation with the wrong tone. I will seek to be more neutral herein.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Eric Joslin writes:
> > As deep as any relationship can be.
>
> No, not really. When you're committed to one other person, no part of your
> brain is seeking another person,
What about your friends? Can you have friends that supply you with forms
of entertainment that your mate can/does not? Would checking out the
salesclerks at the lingere store while you're in the mall be precluded when
fully committed as you describe? Do you feel that most people in monogamous
relationships attain this committment that you're describing?
> > You would be with both of them when they are sick.
>
> Not possible. What then? What if one parters father dies and the funeral's • in
> Cleveland, and one partners father dies and the funeral is in Portland? Both
> very much want you there, both feel that your presence is needed. You cannot
> be in two places at once.
Then one of them has another member of their stable of partners go. And as
Scott mentioned, life is full of such choices.
> Why bother to make an argument if you already see the flaws?
Because I can point out that they aren't really flaw in the argument.
> > But in that case, all the
> > other lovers should come together to visit the hurt or celebritory member of
> > their clique.
>
> Why do you assume that all polyamorous relationships involve people that want
> to spend time with all of their lover's other partners?
Good point. Especially given the nature of the relationships that the
polyamorists that you've dealt with. The only people I have known that were
polyamorous, and not obviously flakes, were building communal group marriage
arrangements. Your assessment of people merely being out for a multi-partner
joy ride seems more applicable to people like you seem to be assuming that
polyamorists are. Maybe our differenec in opinion stems from our difference in
experience.
> Even if they do all
> know each other, what if you have one lover who wants you to be with them
> because they feel down, and one that wants you to be there because they want • to
> celebrate? What if one really needs to be comforted, and the other wants you
> to be there to make their happy occasion complete? How do you resolve that?
As well as you can. It seems that you keep referring to what your partner(s)
need from you, but it has been my experience that partners are generally out
looking for what they can do for one another. The angle is giving and not
receiving. So if there is a group of lovers and one needs consolation and one
needs celibration, then the group can split up as needed.
> > > And, once again, that's fine with me- but it's not
> > > the same as committing to a single person.
> >
> > That's true. Maybe it's better.
>
> Pithy... meaningless... say, you don't work in advertising or PR, do you?
Now, you've gone too far! Actually, I don't think my statement contains any
less meaning than yours to which it was a reply. You implied that not only was
it not the same (with which I agree) but that it was somehow better. And I
countered that with the possibility that you were wrong. It seems clear that
for those who make committing to a few people work, they are better off than
those who only commit to one.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) Yes, but it doesn't mean I have romantic feelings for them. I am capable of caring for someone without wanting to <thinks of a Lugnet-acceptable term> get it on with them. (...) Appreciating someone's physical attractiveness doesn't require (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Polyamory
|
| (...) No, not really. When you're committed to one other person, no part of your brain is seeking another person, or giving attention to another person you're already seeing. (...) No, they're thought experiments. Yours apparently failed. (...) Not (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
